Verified by 
There are a number of laws and ethical systems that regulate the judgments people make about one another. Over the past 10 months, many of my posts have surveyed how we judge personality. This week's focus on "Law and Ethics of Judging...." is so-labeled to explore the legal and ethical aspects of judging one another.
I will approach these issues as a personality psychologist by necessity, as I am neither a lawyer nor an ethicist. Such legal and ethical guidelines, however, are relevant to personality psychology because they provide boundaries as to what personality psychologists (and others) might say about another person.
This week's post examines defamation of character -- an issue that arises fairly frequently in the news. For instance, over the July 4th holiday, some suggested that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, had been the target of such defamatory comments.
As most people now know, on July 3rd, 2009, Ms. Palin announced her intent to resign as Governor of Alaska, and to transfer power to her Lieutenant Governor by the end of the month.
Speculation began almost immediately as to why Governor Palin chose this time to announce her decision. The Anchorage Times interviewed Shannyn Moore, a radio host and blogger, who explained she had heard talk of a possible scandal and "criminal investigation into some activities and that's been rumored for about, I don't know, probably six weeks or two months."
The next day (July 4th), Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, sent a letter (full text) warning various media outlets that:
...several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the "real" reasons for Governor Palin's resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation...
Those media outlets were warned not to publish the allegations; Mr. Van Flein mentioned Ms. Moore by name, and argued all such claims were false, and were actionable under the Alaska state constitution.
Defamation of character must be spoken to a third party - that is, it does not involve calling someone a name to her face, but rather, impugning her character to another person or group of people. Defamation comes in two "flavors": slander, which is primarily oral, and libel, which is written (and potentially includes material on the web).
Some comments are regarded as defamation almost automatically. These include statements that:
- undermine a person's profession or business,
- attribute a "loathsome disease" to the individual, such as sexually-transmitted disease or mental illness,
- allege sexual misconduct, or,
- allege criminal activity, particularly, moral crimes (e.g., child pornography).
The legal category (Defamation of Character) includes statements that a person has a disease such as AIDS or that describe an unflattering parentage of the person. The category also incluces more psychological qualities such as mental illness and other qualities such as brutality or avarice that are held in low esteem.
Defamation of character, therefore, reflects negatively on personality through several means: through direct attribution of an unsavory psychological trait (e.g., greed), or through representations of poor personal choices (e.g., that led to a sexually-transmitted disease), or through connecting the person to an unsavory family or larger group (e.g., pornographers).
Legally, for defamation to be proven, the description of a person's character must be false. In cases against public figures, malicious intent must be demonstrated as well.
Shannyn Moore, who had discussed Palin's resignation, indicated that she was clearly discussing rumors and had made no statements of fact about the Governor. Had Moore stated facts that later proved false, her allegations would be serious and could have, therefore, potentially undermined Palin's professional activities.
Proving defamation can be challenging. Moreover, of special concern to the possible victim, any legal challenge repeats the allegations over again. As a public figure, Governor Palin would need to prove that her accusers exhibited intentional malice, in addition to making false allegations. Moreover, the law allows some latitude to those commenting on public figures in the context of "breaking news" such as an unexpected resignation.
It is perhaps exactly so as to stem the tide of such breaking news stories, that Governor Palin's lawyers acted so quickly. Mr. Van Flein circulated his letter to media outlets on July 4th.
On July 5th, Shannyn Moore responded to Governor Palin and her lawyers on her blog:
...Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What's wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha.
Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me. Shannyn Moore will not be muzzled!
There is public good both in representing a person fairly and also in holding a person to account. Attempting this as events unfold is both challenging and requires some courage. Personality judgments potentially are explosive - so much so that, at the extremes, they can involve the law, civil rights, ethical rules, and powerful conflicts.
More on these topics in future "Laws and Ethics" posts.
Notes
Disclaimer: I make no claims of possessing expert knowledge of the law regarding defamation of character; I am not a lawyer.
The letter from Thomas Van Flein is at: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/07/05/release_for_7-4-09-1.pdf
Shannyn Moore's blog is at:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Shannyn…
The Anchorage Times article is at: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/853746.html
Changes/corrections: The last paragraph was modified 20 min. after posting.
Copyright (c) 2009 John D. Mayer
